Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe you don't, but it's pretty clear that the greater Los Angeles area, with a decent stadium, can support an NFL team. The problem was the ancient Coliseum and the baseball stadium down in Anaheim.
It's a numbers game. There are 20 million people within two hours of the new stadium in Inglewood. That's a larger fanbase than any other area except metropolitan New York, but with less nearby competition.
Look, greater LA supports two NBA teams. Both thrive financially. And that's despite the fact that the Clippers moved into town in the middle of Showtime, have never even been as far as the conference finals, and have won half as many playoff series total and the Lakers have won titles just in that time.
The greater LA area supports two NHL teams. The Kings and Ducks combined to sell 1.4 million tickets to home games. For hockey. The new stadium will hold 70,000 for regular season games. Multiple that by eight homes games and two teams and you have 1.1 million tickets. You don't think two football teams can sell 79% as many tickets as two hockey teams in southern California? Seriously?
And NFL teams tend to serve a greater area as far as tickets go, because people will travel further 8x/year (mostly on weekends) than they will 40+x/year (often on weeknights), and so will be working with more potential customers than the Lakers/Clippers and Kings/Ducks are - all of whom are financial successes.
You don't get why the Chargers don't move into an already-obsolete stadium in St. Louis rather than into a state-of-the-art one in Los Angeles? What's mysterious about that? And that's aside from the fact that even splitting the LA-area fanbase two ways, there are several times more people in metro LA than in metro St. Louis.
Look, I'm not saying I want the Chargers to move. But the move to Los Angeles, unless they get a sweetheart deal in San Diego, is a no-brainer business decision.
ya i always wondered how the Clippers were able to be profitable in the years before Blake Griffin and Chris Paul arrived, but i'm just glad the Rams are back in L.A.
At last check, St Louis before the Rams left was 30th in attendance. Plus STL is losing population and corporate presence. A move by an NFL franchise there would be business suicide, especially with no viable new stadium on the horizon and lacking taxpayer support. LA just makes too much sense for The Chargers unless SD offers an out of this world deal.
This measure alone would mean that several teams should be relocated out of the Midwest and Northeast. Metro St. Louis isn't losing population, although the city is still slowly shrinking, whereas several other NFL cities of fairly similar size as St. Louis are losing population both in their core cities and in their larger metro areas.
St. Louis supported the Rams for a long time, but you can only be God awful for so long before people start losing interest, especially when the other two pro-teams in town are doing well. That's probably a big drawback for the NFL in terms of another team relocating to St. Louis as well, because a new NFL team is not going to get more support from the region than the Cardinals get. Reaction to the Rams leaving STL was mixed, but if the Cardinals had left instead of the Rams, the entire metro would have been on suicide watch.
As for LA, the Rams are currently seeing how fickle fans can be, hence the shockingly empty Coliseum recently and only being the third most watched team in their home market. We'll have to see if Fisher's replacement can turn things around for LA fans, because the Rams are currently the same lemon out in LA that they were back in STL.
The NFL makes several billions of dollars each year. The fact that they cannot loan money to teams to help them build new stadiums is beyond me, never mind the fact that you have owners who are very wealthy and cannot build their own stadiums. Of course there are exceptions, owners like Bob Kraft of the Patriots and Jerry Richardson of the Panthers built their stadiums with private money.
It's a shame a great city like San Diego will not get to host a Super Bowl, but lesser cities like Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Atlanta can; a fact that is especially magnified come late January and early February.
If a team successfully lobbies the public for money to build their stadium, they should be guaranteed to host a Super Bowl at some point - regardless of where they're located.
San Diego did host a Super Bowl..
I specifically remember one of the Broncos SB Wins during the late 90s was in San Diego..
I should have said San Diego cannot host a Super Bowl anymore. The NFL deemed their stadium insufficient to host the game. San Diego also hosted the 2003 Super Bowl between Oakland and Tampa Bay.
My question would be: Does there need to actually be an NFL franchise currently located in a city before a Super Bowl can be awarded? If a stadium is SB worthy, why not?
The NFL makes several billions of dollars each year. The fact that they cannot loan money to teams to help them build new stadiums is beyond me, never mind the fact that you have owners who are very wealthy and cannot build their own stadiums. Of course there are exceptions, owners like Bob Kraft of the Patriots and Jerry Richardson of the Panthers built their stadiums with private money.
It's a shame a great city like San Diego will not get to host a Super Bowl, but lesser cities like Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Atlanta can; a fact that is especially magnified come late January and early February.
If a team successfully lobbies the public for money to build their stadium, they should be guaranteed to host a Super Bowl at some point - regardless of where they're located.
The reason few private entities will pay to build a football stadium is that despite the BS that the NFL tries to sell the public, these stadiums almost never turn a profit. In fact, most are a huge drain on taxepayers for a generation.
Of the stadiums that release info on events other than football (those rock concerts, motor cross, and college games that defenders of football stadiums always cite for increasing the utilization of a stadium used 10 times a year for NFL), Lucas Oil Stadium brought in the most revenue in the league at $8 million, $4 million of which goes to the Colts by contract. Most of that revenue came from a couple of big events, the NCAA basketball tournament and Big Ten Football Championship. The lease with the Colts says the Colts get $3.5 million/year or 50% of the total revenue, whichever is greater. So only $4 million/year goes to the stadium authority. The stadium costs $20 million/year to operate, and even with the Colts revenue on top of the other events it operates at a loss. The state plugged the hole by increasing taxes again on Marion County just to cover operating costs. That doesn't include at all the principal and interest on the $620 million in bonds that the state/city issued to build the thing. Those are 100% funded by taxpayers with a previous round of tax increases. The Colts kicked in $100 million to construction, but they are pretty much guaranteed to make that back with the payments for other event rentals.
Those privately owned stadiums don't release this info, so there is a possibility that they make some money, but I doubt it. The NFL owners can afford to build their own stadium, they are just good enough businessmen to realize it is iffy whether they will even be able to cover their operating expenses, let alone the construction costs. The only reason the Rams Stadium pencils out to be built privately is because the owner thinks he can turn a profit developing offices and retail in the huge area that surrounds the stadium.
Last edited by Texamichiforniasota; 12-14-2016 at 10:29 AM..
The NFL makes several billions of dollars each year. The fact that they cannot loan money to teams to help them build new stadiums is beyond me, never mind the fact that you have owners who are very wealthy and cannot build their own stadiums. Of course there are exceptions, owners like Bob Kraft of the Patriots and Jerry Richardson of the Panthers built their stadiums with private money.
They can. They simply don't, because cities are willing to build them stadiums because on idiotic economics (actually, it's usually based on local demand and economics are just the excuse, and a thin one at that).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAM88
If a team successfully lobbies the public for money to build their stadium, they should be guaranteed to host a Super Bowl at some point - regardless of where they're located.
But since cities are willing to build stadiums without that stipulation, it will never happen - and if, say, Cincinnati agrees to build an outdoor stadium for the Bengals only on the stipulation that an outdoor Super Bowl will be held in Cincinnati some February, the NFL will just shrug its shoulders and refuse. It has that power, as long as some other city without a team - St. Louis, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Portland, etc. - is willing to do so without that stipulation.
I have no use for publicly-funded stadiums, but I can't blame the NFL for taking advantage of cities that basically line up and beg to be taken advantage of. The NFL is in the money-making business. Blame it on local voters who punish local politicians who don't support pissing away obscene amounts of money on stadiums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt Cassidy
My question would be: Does there need to actually be an NFL franchise currently located in a city before a Super Bowl can be awarded? If a stadium is SB worthy, why not?
Almost all stadium deals these days ensure that the team's owner makes money on events at that stadium beyond their team's home games. In light of that, why on Earth would the NFL not play every Super Bowl in the stadium of one of its teams? Doing so would make zero sense, even aside from the intangible benefits of doing so? Again, it's a business. The NFL isn't going to steer profits away from its membership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota
The reason few private entities will pay to build a football stadium is that despite the BS that the NFL tries to sell the public, these stadiums almost never turn a profit. In fact, most are a huge drain on taxepayers for a generation.
Exactly.
The dollars they bring into an area that would not otherwise be spent there are dwarfed by their costs.
People bleat about how much money is spent on things like parking and dining out before/after games and hotel rooms by people attending games, but that's just discretionary income. If there wasn't an NFL team for people to spend their money on, they'd be spending it mostly on other local events. That money would still be injected into the local economy. And a lot of it wouldn't be going to millionaires who often live in some other part of the country, spending their taxpayer-derived-incomes in another state.
But people just don't get it. Or they do and they don't care. Hell, I regularly hear local radio hosts who rant and rave about government spending, who nonetheless are emphatic that it's necessary to fork over a billion dollars for a stadium.
I swear, most people can't seem to figure out that the NFL is a for-profit business. They think it's some sort of civic manifestation of the city/state/region. It's not. The vast majority of the players are not locals. Many owners aren't locals. They sell fans on the team's name and usually the nickname, which are based on the local area (Pittsburgh Steelers, Minnesota Vikings, Houston Texans, etc.) and tap into the base tribalism found in many people. They think the Steelers or Adrian Peterson are 'one of them'.
They're not.
They're people out to make money. And the money then intend to make is in your pocket. And you (not you, Texamichiforniasota, but you know what I mean) happily fork it over to them.
No sympathy from me.
None.
The NFL will stop fleecing taxpayers only when taxpayers stop queuing up and begging to be fleeced.
The reason few private entities will pay to build a football stadium is that despite the BS that the NFL tries to sell the public, these stadiums almost never turn a profit. In fact, most are a huge drain on taxepayers for a generation.
Of the stadiums that release info on events other than football (those rock concerts, motor cross, and college games that defenders of football stadiums always cite for increasing the utilization of a stadium used 10 times a year for NFL), Lucas Oil Stadium brought in the most revenue in the league at $8 million, $4 million of which goes to the Colts by contract. Most of that revenue came from a couple of big events, the NCAA basketball tournament and Big Ten Football Championship. The lease with the Colts says the Colts get $3.5 million/year or 50% of the total revenue, whichever is greater. So only $4 million/year goes to the stadium authority. The stadium costs $20 million/year to operate, and even with the Colts revenue on top of the other events it operates at a loss. The state plugged the hole by increasing taxes again on Marion County just to cover operating costs. That doesn't include at all the principal and interest on the $620 million in bonds that the state/city issued to build the thing. Those are 100% funded by taxpayers with a previous round of tax increases. The Colts kicked in $100 million to construction, but they are pretty much guaranteed to make that back with the payments for other event rentals.
Those privately owned stadiums don't release this info, so there is a possibility that they make some money, but I doubt it. The NFL owners can afford to build their own stadium, they are just good enough businessmen to realize it is iffy whether they will even be able to cover their operating expenses, let alone the construction costs. The only reason the Rams Stadium pencils out to be built privately is because the owner thinks he can turn a profit developing offices and retail in the huge area that surrounds the stadium.
That's a great post. I can see why a city like Indianapolis would shell out a lot of money on a stadium - without a major sporting event, there's very little reason for an out of state tourist to visit the city. Outside of the Indy 500 and the NCAA events (thanks to the NCAA being based there they are in the regular rotation for the Final Four), the city must struggle to attract visitors from outside of the state.
In a situation like Indy, who owns the parking lots surrounding the stadium?
My question would be: Does there need to actually be an NFL franchise currently located in a city before a Super Bowl can be awarded? If a stadium is SB worthy, why not?
Yes, an NFL team must be located in that market to host a Super Bowl, that is why LA hasn't hosted one in the last 20 odd years. But they are already guaranteed to host one when the new stadium is built.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
